The late Dorothy Allison was able to predict the exact date events would happen in the future. In the following case, in which a banker disappeared from a commuter train on his way home from work, Dorothy was able to describe the events surrounding the discovery of the man´s body, the date, and the details including a prediction about the people who it turned out found the body, even though those people had only decided that very morning to go to the location for some archery practice.
Dorothy described an arrow which was not far from an old row of tires, scattered in a line on the ground. She could make out the numbers “166” in the far distance, and then, in a different way, the numbers “222” appeared.
“Look for the numbers one, six, six and two, two, two around the body. They don´t have anything to do with each other, and they might not be places,” she warned him, and then added, “I see a playground too.”
The detective, a man named Lupo, looked puzzled.
“I see that arrow and archer again,” Dorothy said.
“What do you suppose archery has to do with John DeMarrs?” Lupos asked.
“I can´t tell. There might be an archery range nearby, or maybe he was killed accidentally by a flying Indian with a bow and arrow. You´d be a horse´s ass if you had written that down,” Dorothy laughed.
“I see the playground, tires, two guys, and a place that looks like a plant or factory that has burned down.”
“What the hell are two guys in a playground supposed to tell me,” Lupo asked.
“I didn´t say there were two guys in a playground. I don´t know either.”
By late January, Lupo and Dorothy had travelled back and forth along the riverbanks in the vicinity of several train stops. Dorothy began to feel that searching any more was futile. Then the numbers “222” came to her again and she told Lupo that he should hold onto those numbers. They would be important.
That night Dorothy called Lupo at home and told him that Demars would be found on Febrary 22. She decided that was the meaning of the numbers.
It was on February 22 that the police learned that a body had been found in the Passaic River. A wallet had been found on the body, with the identification inside.
Lupo drove the several miles to the site of the body as he has been told. He discovered that the body had been found behind a Two Guys department store. Here was the Two Guys department store, there the playground, and as he stood there, he saw the charred ruins of what had been a paint factory across the river. The number “166” was painted on a tugboat that was tied up under the bridge.
Lupo could see the tracks made by the coroner and all the policemen in the mud. He followed the tracks through to the park where a teenage boy watched him approach.
“Do you know how they found this guy?” Lupo asked.
“Yeah, me and my dad found him. We were shooting arrows at a target and one got away. I ran to chase it down by the river´s edge, and I saw that man´s leg in the mud and plants. I ran back and my dad went over to Two Guys and called the police.”
The father and son archery team had not decided until that very morning to go shoot arrows down by the river and yet Dorothy Allison had been able to predict that they would several months before. How?
Many people believe totally and absolutely that the future is not fixed. One rather ridiculous New Age idea is something called creative visualization. It simply means you can change the future by visualization. But what happens when it doesn´t work?
New Ager Remez Sasson writes, “Almost every day, I receive mail from people, asking why they are not getting results from creative visualization.
People get excited when they come to know about the wonders visualization can do. They begin to visualize enthusiastically, hoping to get quick results. Sometimes, they do get results quickly, but then, this power seems to stop working, or to bring only minor results.
Why does this happen?
If visualization produces results once or more times, why doesn’t it do so always?
There must be an explanation.”
Yes, there is an explanation. The explanation is that creative visualization is a lot of nonsense.
Let us say for the sake of argument that there is a chance that the future is not totally fixed. If that were so, it would not be possible to predict who would show up on any given night for a lecture because each person´s free will would determine where or not they attended. And it certainly would not possible for a psychic to predict who would sit in a certain seat weeks and even months before the event. And yet that is exactly what happened with psychic Gerard Croiset and the famous “chair tests.”
The best way to describe them is to give an example. The aim is to prove precognition and Croiset successfully performed hundreds of these tests before witnesses in various European countries. On 6th January, 1957, in front of witnesses at the University in Utrecht, Croiset was handed a seating plan for a meeting to be held twenty five days later in The Hague, fifty eight kilometres away. The guest list had not yet been made up, but there were thirty chairs in the seating plan and Croiset chose chair number nine. Asked who would be sitting in that chair on the night, Croiset handled the chart then began talking into a tape recorder with his impressions. He said that a cheerful, active, middle-aged woman would sit in chair number nine and she was interested in caring for children. He said that between 1928 and 1930 she used to walk between the Kurhaus and Strassburger’s Circus in Scheveningen. He claimed that, when she was a little girl, she had many experiences where there was cheese-making. He saw a farm on fire and some animals burned to death.
He mentioned three boys, one with a job overseas in a British territory. He alleged she had been looking at a picture of a Maharajah. He wondered if she experienced a strong emotion about the opera ‘Falstaff’ and thought it may be the first opera she’d ever seen. He also stated that on the day the meeting took place she would take a little girl to the dentist and this visit would create a lot of commotion.
All together there were twelve detailed statements. I’ve only mentioned seven, but they were all transcribed and sealed into an envelope. The following day the host was told she could go ahead and issue thirty invitations. On the night of the meeting, the participants were given a copy of Croiset’s statements and asked to check if any applied to them, and a procedure was used with random cards to ensure that they did not sit in a chair of their own choice, and that they did sit in the seat randomly allocated to them. Only after this had been carried out did Croiset enter the building, thus precluding his influence upon the process of seat selection. The woman in seat no nine was asked if any statements applied to her and she agreed that many of them did. Virtually none of the statements applied to the other twenty nine people. Later the woman in seat number nine was interviewed and the accuracy of Croiset’s statements was deemed to be remarkable.
She was active, vivacious and forty two, with an interest in child care. When her father came home on leave from abroad he took her walking in Scheveningen near where Croiset had outlined. As a child she often visited farms producing butter and cheese. Once, on a farm, she witnessed a horse killed by lightning and was profoundly affected by it. This was not quite the same as Croiset’s statement of her seeing animals burned in a fire. She had a brother-in-law, one of three boys who was in Singapore, a British territory, during the war. A few days before the meeting she had seen a picture of a yogi and had had a conversation with her son about it. This seemed the nearest fit to Croiset’s reference to a Maharajah. And with regard to the opera ‘Falstaff’, it was the first opera she had sung as a professional opera singer and she had fallen in love with the tenor in it. With regard to the visit to the dentists, she had taken her little daughter on that very day to deal with a cavity. The child had been frightened and had suffered pain during the visit.